Datasets:
willtheorangeguy
/
2022-Go-Time-Transcripts

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
 Community
text
stringlengths
0
2.35k
[1861.52 --> 1862.84] I got ahead of you there, I knew.
[1862.84 --> 1863.32] Yeah.
[1863.98 --> 1866.28] My first job, we...
[1866.28 --> 1867.52] Did we use Jira?
[1868.02 --> 1868.62] I don't know, whatever.
[1868.70 --> 1869.76] We used columns, right?
[1869.90 --> 1870.44] We used columns.
[1870.60 --> 1872.46] So, there was the column PR review.
[1872.64 --> 1874.76] So, the open PRs were there for review.
[1875.26 --> 1877.66] And then there could be, I think we were three people.
[1877.82 --> 1881.02] So, there could be only two PRs on review.
[1881.36 --> 1882.88] So, do you want to put something for review?
[1882.98 --> 1884.22] We have to take something to review.
[1885.02 --> 1885.20] Right?
[1885.26 --> 1889.56] So, this happened, helped to keep the, you know, the process running, everyone reviewing.
[1890.76 --> 1892.82] Nowadays, like, I think it's a lot of people.
[1892.82 --> 1897.06] I think when you're really running a Jira startup, microservice, you know, just deploy,
[1897.46 --> 1901.30] you usually expect something in the next day to get an answer.
[1902.10 --> 1905.66] Not elastic, within the week, I'd say.
[1906.18 --> 1906.38] Okay.
[1907.16 --> 1910.62] And do you have different commitments when it comes to internally, like, your internal
[1910.62 --> 1914.18] team PRs versus people who are maybe contributing to your service?
[1914.56 --> 1918.04] I.e., like, in our system, we have a lot of external teams that will contribute to our
[1918.04 --> 1919.92] service and ask for PR reviews.
[1919.92 --> 1925.98] Like, what is a reasonable timeline to commit to review those external PRs?
[1926.40 --> 1928.16] I think there are two categories, right?
[1928.20 --> 1931.26] If it's just a normal flow, they go in the same flow.
[1931.82 --> 1937.16] But if it's something that someone external is doing because our team doesn't have capacity
[1937.16 --> 1939.38] and then it is really important, right?
[1939.58 --> 1941.74] Probably, I would try to prioritize this review.
[1942.52 --> 1948.60] But also, if someone that's not from the team or doesn't know the rapid conventions, it's
[1948.60 --> 1950.94] probably going to be a more thorough review.
[1950.94 --> 1955.40] I strongly believe that your code should be consistent, right?
[1955.44 --> 1959.32] I'd rather have something that they don't like, but it's consistent and it's always
[1959.32 --> 1963.54] there, than half of the code they like, half of the code they don't like, and another third
[1963.54 --> 1964.64] they don't even have an opinion.
[1965.90 --> 1971.64] So, in external reviews, I think there's the extra consistent thing in code conventions
[1971.64 --> 1974.14] from the repo that you have to put through.
[1974.86 --> 1977.04] And then it should be, I mean, it's better to be quicker.
[1977.58 --> 1978.16] For sure.
[1978.60 --> 1980.30] I really like that column policy.
[1980.42 --> 1981.78] I might have to implement that on my team.
[1982.10 --> 1982.72] Yeah, right.
[1982.90 --> 1985.08] You can't put a PR on if they're already two.
[1985.16 --> 1986.12] You have to review them.
[1986.70 --> 1987.90] Yeah, it makes things...
[1987.90 --> 1988.50] I love that.
[1988.56 --> 1989.12] ...to move.
[1989.30 --> 1990.26] I think it's nice.
[1990.82 --> 1991.32] I agree.
[1991.60 --> 1992.34] It's a weight group.
[1992.78 --> 1995.00] We pretty much describe this concept now.
[1995.30 --> 1996.70] It's a channel with a buffer.
[1996.70 --> 1997.14] Yeah.
[1998.34 --> 2001.86] And then I'm going to have to be the bad girl who comes into Slack and someone's like,
[2001.90 --> 2004.10] oh, I'm ready to put my PR on this big new feature.
[2004.32 --> 2006.08] And I'm like, you're not allowed to.
[2006.72 --> 2007.12] Counterful.
[2007.44 --> 2008.80] Go review Bob's PR.
[2009.20 --> 2009.80] Throwing air.
[2011.24 --> 2011.52] Yeah.
[2012.02 --> 2014.36] There's the poking PR review.
[2014.60 --> 2017.54] You only get your PR reviewed when you poke someone, right?
[2017.64 --> 2018.36] You don't want to add.
[2019.76 --> 2020.12] Exception.
[2022.64 --> 2026.58] It can be a fun way of teaching all sorts of Go concepts now that...
[2026.70 --> 2028.22] This gave me some ideas.
[2028.32 --> 2028.68] Thank you.
[2028.86 --> 2029.98] We're doing a PR review?
[2030.54 --> 2031.46] By poking people?
[2031.92 --> 2032.24] Yeah.
[2032.66 --> 2033.58] With limiting this.
[2033.70 --> 2035.82] This is a fun way to discuss this.
[2035.96 --> 2039.96] And on the way, you discuss errors, throwing incorrect errors and also exceptions and so on.
[2040.16 --> 2040.56] Okay.
[2041.08 --> 2043.68] Go routines if you suddenly have to split into that.
[2043.84 --> 2043.92] Yeah.
[2044.48 --> 2046.70] Talking about teaching Go in unusual ways.
[2046.70 --> 2057.72] I was thinking today, someone should write a Go program that simulates how the queue for the food works here and then make a proper Go concurrent good program for that.
[2057.98 --> 2060.02] Because the queue is unnecessary here.
[2060.44 --> 2061.84] We have a lot of contingents.
[2062.20 --> 2065.10] I was like, you know, you can make better concurrency here.
[2065.10 --> 2067.80] Because you have lots of food stations that people miss.
[2068.10 --> 2068.64] That's the point.
[2068.70 --> 2069.74] You have a lot of food stations.
[2069.86 --> 2072.56] You can have a lot of concurrent access to that.
[2072.90 --> 2073.94] But no, you get sequential.
[2074.12 --> 2077.00] You get a huge queue and everyone goes through everything that they don't want.
[2077.72 --> 2079.72] I think because we're just out of the...
[2079.72 --> 2080.70] They didn't read the docs.
[2080.94 --> 2081.94] They don't know what's the food.
[2082.04 --> 2082.86] They didn't read the docs.
[2082.96 --> 2083.30] Exactly.
[2084.10 --> 2085.66] Everything can be explained with pick.
[2085.96 --> 2086.78] Lesson learned.
[2086.98 --> 2088.80] Always read the docs first.
[2089.04 --> 2091.10] And if they're bad docs, then...
[2091.84 --> 2092.44] Improve them.
[2093.08 --> 2093.64] Improve them.
[2093.64 --> 2095.00] Open a pull request for the docs.